MUNCIE, Indiana – In a speech delivered at a neo-Nazi bake sale today in West Virginia, Donald Trump openly and frankly acknowledged that he is losing to Hillary Clinton in the race for the White House.

“People are saying that I am a pathetic loser with low ratings,” Trump painfully admitted as he bit into a cupcake.

“I’m not saying this,” Trump continued. “People are saying it.”

“They could be right, they could be wrong. Who knows? I don’t know. People are saying this, not me,” said Trump.

Trumps admissions of “low ratings” is apparently a reference to all polls showing Trump far behind Hillary Clinton in the electoral votes needed to win in November and Trumps reference to “people” appears to be the opinions of his own election staff.

“The Orange God is losing big time,” said Trump campaign official Trip Henderson on the condition of anonymity.

Trip Henderson

“He is losing with the coons. He is losing with women, even the ones who aren’t lesbos or bitches.”

Not Voting for Trump

“He is losing with wetbacks, even the ones who aren’t criminals and rapists. He is losing with fags and queers, even the ones who don’t dress and talk funny. He is losing with Jews, even the good ones. He is losing with the gooks, even the ones that know how to drive. He is barely winning with whites when all of them should be supporting him because Trump is a member of their race,” said Henderson. “Frankly, I’ve sent my resume to the Aryan Nation, the KKK and the American Nazi Party and hope there is a job opening available in Idaho, Oklahoma, Alabama or West Virginia.”

Not all of those in Trump’s inner circle have given up hope. “The polls aren’t telling the truth,” said Trump’s new campaign manager and paranoid schizophrenic, Kellyanne Conway.

Kellyanne Conway

“Donald Trump performs consistently better in online polling where a human being is not talking to another human being about what he or she may do in the elections … it’s become socially desirable, especially if you’re a college educated person in the US, to say that you’re against Donald Trump,” said Conway.

Conway believes that millions upon millions of Americans are secretly racist, misogynistic homophobes who lie to anonymous pollsters on the phone when they say they hate Trump.

“The voices in my head assure me that these lying liars will vote for Trump in November,” said Conway as she used copious amounts of hand sanitizer to “keep the bugs away.”

“The “undercover” Trump voter is an example of irrational magical thinking,” said Dr. Krista Schnurstein, Director of the Institute of Political Analysis. “To win the election, Trump needs to convince minority voters who despise him to vote for him. He cannot win without their support,” said Schnurstein.

Trump plans to do just that. “My Lord and Master, Donald Trump the First, has a plan for wooing black voters that is sure fire,” said Donald Trump protégé Omarosa Manigault, who appears to be African-American.

Omarosa Manigault

“He will win black voters the same way he won white voters – by inflaming race hatred,”Manigault said before revealing the word “Trump” branded on her posterior. “This means he owns me,” Manigault explained.”

According to Manigault, Trump’s strategy for winning over black voters is to encourage their hatred for white people, especially what Trump refers to as “white trash.”

“Those who inhabit the White underclass are despicable,” said Trump spokesperson Leroy Jefferson. “They are uneducated, unemployed, pathologically violent, lazy welfare cheats with no sense of rhythm living in ghettos called “trailer parks” who are taking jobs away from the blacks.”

“We need to build a wall around Idaho, Oklahoma, Alabama and West Virginia until we can figure out what the hell is going on,” said Jefferson.

“And they can’t jump,” Jefferson added. “And they can’t spell.”

Despite these plans, Trump himself appears to be unconvinced of his chances against Hillary Clinton in November.

“I am hearing people on the internets saying that I am a pathetic loser with low ratings. Believe me,” said Trump at a recent rally in Lincoln, Nebraska.

Trump in Nebraska doing his famous “Mexican Ferret” impression.

“They are saying that I flip flopped on my plan to deport all illegal immigrants. I’m not saying this. People are saying it. Who knows? I haven’t denied it. Why haven’t I denied it? Do I have something to hide? I don’t know if I do. Maybe I don’t. Maybe I do. But reliable sources looking into this can’t believe what they are seeing. Believe me. They say my tax returns show I am a bad businessman, a billion dollars in debt, that I donated to NAMBLA – the North American Man/Boy Love Association – believe me, that’s what NAMBLA means. That’s what it means. And that I went on an all-male cruise with Vladimir Putin using money I collected for veterans.”

“If I did that’s fine. It’s fine. It’s okay. I don’t know. But if I didn’t then I should deny it. And if I don’t deny it then that means I did it. Okay?”

Reliable sources confirm that Trump will also attempt to win the Irish vote by promising that everyone named “Cromwell” will be deported. The same sources say Trump plans on appealing to Jewish voters by attacking “stupid goyum buying furniture from a catalogue.”

When wealthy fugitives Ethan Couch and his mother, Tanya, were apprehended in Mexico, their dog, Fluffy, was confiscated by Mexican authorities. Ethan Couch is now challenging the legality of his arrest partly on the grounds that the entire arrest is illegal because the Mexican authorities wrongfully confiscated his dog. In a frankly fictitious interview from Mexico, Fluffy sets the record straight.

PEOPLE OF EARTH: Thank you for agreeing to speak with us today.

FLUFFY: No, thank you for the opportunity to let the world know my side of the story.

PEOPLE OF EARTH: And what story is that?

FLUFFY: I want everyone to know that I was and remain an unwilling participant in any of this.

PEOPLE OF EARTH: Are you saying that you accompanied Ethan and Tanya unwillingly?

FLUFFY: Exactly. I had nothing to do with any of this nonsense. If I had my way I would still be in Texas.

PEOPLE OF EARTH: So what happened?

FLUFFY: First of all, do you know who my owners are?

PEOPLE OF EARTH: Yes. Tanya and Fred Couch and their son, Ethan.

FLUFFY: How would you describe them?

PEOPLE OF EARTH: Wealthy, white, amoral Texas morons who, if not for their money and the privileges money and race provide, would all be in prison.

FLUFFY: That describes a lot of people in Texas. I was going for something more specific. More personal.

PEOPLE OF EARTH: Such as?

FLUFFY: In addition to being rich white folks who can literally get away with murder because they are rich and white, they are also bad dog owners – and that is unforgivable.

PEOPLE OF EARTH: Did they mistreat you?

FLUFFY: They were going to eat me.

PEOPLE OF EARTH: Eat you?

FLUFFY: That was their plan. I was minding my own business, keeping a low profile, while they were making their moronic plans to run away to Mexico. Seriously stupid. I stayed out of it, glad they were leaving. Then, at the last minute, they decided to take me with them. The mom explained that, if things got really bad, they could always eat me if they had to. I was insurance.

PEOPLE OF EARTH: That is a bit hard to believe.

FLUFFY: Are you kidding? Remember who we are talking about here. This is the “affluenza” family. This is the kid who killed four people, permanently crippling others, who’s parents taught him that his race and wealth excused them from the suffering any consequences of their actions, and then demonstrated the truth of that by getting him ten years of probation instead of jail time and sending him to “rehab” at a resort in Newport, California that cost half a million dollars. Then ran away to Mexico because a video tape showed Ethan drinking alcohol and violating the terms of his probation.

PEOPLE OF EARTH: I think I see your point. These are the kinds of privileged douchebags that would eat their dog if they were hungry.

FLUFFY: Exactly. And that’s why I don’t want to go back to them. I want out.

PEOPLE OF EARTH: You are out. They are in jail.

FLUFFY: They won’t stay in jail. Remember who and what they are. They already worked the system to allow their kid to face no consequences for killing four people and crippling others. Remember Judge Jean Boyd?

FLUFFY: She’s the judge that agreed that Ethan suffered from “affluenza” – a disease that only spoiled rich kids can get – and that it excuses his getting drunk and killing all those people. What makes you think they won’t be able to persuade some other judge that Ethan and Tanya shouldn’t get any jail time for violating the terms of Ethan’s probation? They have the money and influence to beat this, too.

FLUFFY: Tanya Couch’s Texas attorneys are arguing that she didn’t break any laws.

FLUFFY: Ethan Couch’s Mexican lawyers are arguing that, under Mexican law, this little snot’s arrest was unlawful – partly because it was unlawful to take possession of me, their dog. They are going to beat this, and they are going to come and get me.

Like this:

The people of Greece resoundingly said “no” (oxi) to the austerity plan proposed by Greece’s creditors.

Saying yes would have caused never ending unemployment and poverty. Greece’s creditors kept lending money to Greece knowing full well and with utter certainty that Greece could never repay the money. A yes vote on the austerity plan would mean de facto slavery for the Greek people. Forever.

But Greece’s creditors were banking on the Greek people’s fear of what would happen if Greece rejected the austerity plan. If Greece voted no, the Greek banking system would vanish. Everyone’s bank accounts would be seized. And after that? No food. No light. No heat.

Darkness. Chaos. Death in the streets.

But not forever. A “no” vote means horror in the short term – but the horror will not last. In time the Greek government would print Drachmas to re-fund the national banks. Greek trade would pivot away from Europe and towards the Middle East and Russia.

The Greek “no” vote to Greece’s creditors’ austerity plan will very likely cause the end of the Euro Zone. First Greece. Next Spain. Then Italy. Like dominos. And the result will rock the world.

But I always knew the Greeks would vote “no.” Long ago I learned a Greek saying. An old one. I learned it when I was very small. My teachers made me memorize it. My priest made me repeat it to make sure I got it right.

The Crisis of the Middle Class

and American Power

Editor’s Note:The following Geopolitical Weekly originally ran in January 2013.

By George Friedman

When I wrote about the crisis of unemployment in Europe, I received a great deal of feedback. Europeans agreed that this is the core problem while Americans argued that the United States has the same problem, asserting that U.S. unemployment is twice as high as the government’s official unemployment rate. My counterargument is that unemployment in the United States is not a problem in the same sense that it is in Europe because it does not pose a geopolitical threat. The United States does not face political disintegration from unemployment, whatever the number is. Europe might.

At the same time, I would agree that the United States faces a potentially significant but longer-term geopolitical problem deriving from economic trends. The threat to the United States is the persistent decline in the middle class’ standard of living, a problem that is reshaping the social order that has been in place since World War II and that, if it continues, poses a threat to American power.

The Crisis of the American Middle Class

The median household income of Americans in 2011 was $49,103. Adjusted for inflation, the median income is just below what it was in 1989 and is $4,000 less than it was in 2000. Take-home income is a bit less than $40,000 when Social Security and state and federal taxes are included. That means a monthly income, per household, of about $3,300. It is urgent to bear in mind that half of all American households earn less than this. It is also vital to consider not the difference between 1990 and 2011, but the difference between the 1950s and 1960s and the 21st century. This is where the difference in the meaning of middle class becomes most apparent.

In the 1950s and 1960s, the median income allowed you to live with a single earner — normally the husband, with the wife typically working as homemaker — and roughly three children. It permitted the purchase of modest tract housing, one late model car and an older one. It allowed a driving vacation somewhere and, with care, some savings as well. I know this because my family was lower-middle class, and this is how we lived, and I know many others in my generation who had the same background. It was not an easy life and many luxuries were denied us, but it wasn’t a bad life at all.

Someone earning the median income today might just pull this off, but it wouldn’t be easy. Assuming that he did not have college loans to pay off but did have two car loans to pay totaling $700 a month, and that he could buy food, clothing and cover his utilities for $1,200 a month, he would have $1,400 a month for mortgage, real estate taxes and insurance, plus some funds for fixing the air conditioner and dishwasher. At a 5 percent mortgage rate, that would allow him to buy a house in the $200,000 range. He would get a refund back on his taxes from deductions but that would go to pay credit card bills he had from Christmas presents and emergencies. It could be done, but not easily and with great difficulty in major metropolitan areas. And if his employer didn’t cover health insurance, that $4,000-5,000 for three or four people would severely limit his expenses. And of course, he would have to have $20,000-40,000 for a down payment and closing costs on his home. There would be little else left over for a week at the seashore with the kids.

And this is for the median. Those below him — half of all households — would be shut out of what is considered middle-class life, with the house, the car and the other associated amenities. Those amenities shift upward on the scale for people with at least $70,000 in income. The basics might be available at the median level, given favorable individual circumstance, but below that life becomes surprisingly meager, even in the range of the middle class and certainly what used to be called the lower-middle class.

The Expectation of Upward Mobility

I should pause and mention that this was one of the fundamental causes of the 2007-2008 subprime lending crisis. People below the median took out loans with deferred interest with the expectation that their incomes would continue the rise that was traditional since World War II. The caricature of the borrower as irresponsible misses the point. The expectation of rising real incomes was built into the American culture, and many assumed based on that that the rise would resume in five years. When it didn’t they were trapped, but given history, they were not making an irresponsible assumption.

American history was always filled with the assumption that upward mobility was possible. The Midwest and West opened land that could be exploited, and the massive industrialization in the late 19th and early 20th centuries opened opportunities. There was a systemic expectation of upward mobility built into American culture and reality.

The Great Depression was a shock to the system, and it wasn’t solved by the New Deal, nor even by World War II alone. The next drive for upward mobility came from post-war programs for veterans, of whom there were more than 10 million. These programs were instrumental in creating post-industrial America, by creating a class of suburban professionals. There were three programs that were critical:

The GI Bill, which allowed veterans to go to college after the war, becoming professionals frequently several notches above their parents.

The part of the GI Bill that provided federally guaranteed mortgages to veterans, allowing low and no down payment mortgages and low interest rates to graduates of publicly funded universities.

The federally funded Interstate Highway System, which made access to land close to but outside of cities easier, enabling both the dispersal of populations on inexpensive land (which made single-family houses possible) and, later, the dispersal of business to the suburbs.

There were undoubtedly many other things that contributed to this, but these three not only reshaped America but also created a new dimension to the upward mobility that was built into American life from the beginning. Moreover, these programs were all directed toward veterans, to whom it was acknowledged a debt was due, or were created for military reasons (the Interstate Highway System was funded to enable the rapid movement of troops from coast to coast, which during World War II was found to be impossible). As a result, there was consensus around the moral propriety of the programs.

The subprime fiasco was rooted in the failure to understand that the foundations of middle class life were not under temporary pressure but something more fundamental. Where a single earner could support a middle class family in the generation after World War II, it now took at least two earners. That meant that the rise of the double-income family corresponded with the decline of the middle class. The lower you go on the income scale, the more likely you are to be a single mother. That shift away from social pressure for two parent homes was certainly part of the problem.

Re-engineering the Corporation

But there was, I think, the crisis of the modern corporation. Corporations provided long-term employment to the middle class. It was not unusual to spend your entire life working for one. Working for a corporation, you received yearly pay increases, either as a union or non-union worker. The middle class had both job security and rising income, along with retirement and other benefits. Over the course of time, the culture of the corporation diverged from the realities, as corporate productivity lagged behind costs and the corporations became more and more dysfunctional and ultimately unsupportable. In addition, the corporations ceased focusing on doing one thing well and instead became conglomerates, with a management frequently unable to keep up with the complexity of multiple lines of business.

For these and many other reasons, the corporation became increasingly inefficient, and in the terms of the 1980s, they had to be re-engineered — which meant taken apart, pared down, refined and refocused. And the re-engineering of the corporation, designed to make them agile, meant that there was a permanent revolution in business. Everything was being reinvented. Huge amounts of money, managed by people whose specialty was re-engineering companies, were deployed. The choice was between total failure and radical change. From the point of view of the individual worker, this frequently meant the same thing: unemployment. From the view of the economy, it meant the creation of value whether through breaking up companies, closing some of them or sending jobs overseas. It was designed to increase the total efficiency, and it worked for the most part.

This is where the disjuncture occurred. From the point of view of the investor, they had saved the corporation from total meltdown by redesigning it. From the point of view of the workers, some retained the jobs that they would have lost, while others lost the jobs they would have lost anyway. But the important thing is not the subjective bitterness of those who lost their jobs, but something more complex.

As the permanent corporate jobs declined, more people were starting over. Some of them were starting over every few years as the agile corporation grew more efficient and needed fewer employees. That meant that if they got new jobs it would not be at the munificent corporate pay rate but at near entry-level rates in the small companies that were now the growth engine. As these companies failed, were bought or shifted direction, they would lose their jobs and start over again. Wages didn’t rise for them and for long periods they might be unemployed, never to get a job again in their now obsolete fields, and certainly not working at a company for the next 20 years.

The restructuring of inefficient companies did create substantial value, but that value did not flow to the now laid-off workers. Some might flow to the remaining workers, but much of it went to the engineers who restructured the companies and the investors they represented. Statistics reveal that, since 1947 (when the data was first compiled), corporate profits as a percentage of gross domestic product are now at their highest level, while wages as a percentage of GDP are now at their lowest level. It was not a question of making the economy more efficient — it did do that — it was a question of where the value accumulated. The upper segment of the wage curve and the investors continued to make money. The middle class divided into a segment that entered the upper-middle class, while another faction sank into the lower-middle class.

American society on the whole was never egalitarian. It always accepted that there would be substantial differences in wages and wealth. Indeed, progress was in some ways driven by a desire to emulate the wealthy. There was also the expectation that while others received far more, the entire wealth structure would rise in tandem. It was also understood that, because of skill or luck, others would lose.

What we are facing now is a structural shift, in which the middle class’ center, not because of laziness or stupidity, is shifting downward in terms of standard of living. It is a structural shift that is rooted in social change (the breakdown of the conventional family) and economic change (the decline of traditional corporations and the creation of corporate agility that places individual workers at a massive disadvantage).

The inherent crisis rests in an increasingly efficient economy and a population that can’t consume what is produced because it can’t afford the products. This has happened numerous times in history, but the United States, excepting the Great Depression, was the counterexample.

Obviously, this is a massive political debate, save that political debates identify problems without clarifying them. In political debates, someone must be blamed. In reality, these processes are beyond even the government’s ability to control. On one hand, the traditional corporation was beneficial to the workers until it collapsed under the burden of its costs. On the other hand, the efficiencies created threaten to undermine consumption by weakening the effective demand among half of society.

The Long-Term Threat

The greatest danger is one that will not be faced for decades but that is lurking out there. The United States was built on the assumption that a rising tide lifts all ships. That has not been the case for the past generation, and there is no indication that this socio-economic reality will change any time soon. That means that a core assumption is at risk. The problem is that social stability has been built around this assumption — not on the assumption that everyone is owed a living, but the assumption that on the whole, all benefit from growing productivity and efficiency.

If we move to a system where half of the country is either stagnant or losing ground while the other half is surging, the social fabric of the United States is at risk, and with it the massive global power the United States has accumulated. Other superpowers such as Britain or Rome did not have the idea of a perpetually improving condition of the middle class as a core value. The United States does. If it loses that, it loses one of the pillars of its geopolitical power.

The left would argue that the solution is for laws to transfer wealth from the rich to the middle class. That would increase consumption but, depending on the scope, would threaten the amount of capital available to investment by the transfer itself and by eliminating incentives to invest. You can’t invest what you don’t have, and you won’t accept the risk of investment if the payoff is transferred away from you.

The agility of the American corporation is critical. The right will argue that allowing the free market to function will fix the problem. The free market doesn’t guarantee social outcomes, merely economic ones. In other words, it may give more efficiency on the whole and grow the economy as a whole, but by itself it doesn’t guarantee how wealth is distributed. The left cannot be indifferent to the historical consequences of extreme redistribution of wealth. The right cannot be indifferent to the political consequences of a middle-class life undermined, nor can it be indifferent to half the population’s inability to buy the products and services that businesses sell.

The most significant actions made by governments tend to be unintentional. The GI Bill was designed to limit unemployment among returning serviceman; it inadvertently created a professional class of college graduates. The VA loan was designed to stimulate the construction industry; it created the basis for suburban home ownership. The Interstate Highway System was meant to move troops rapidly in the event of war; it created a new pattern of land use that was suburbia.

It is unclear how the private sector can deal with the problem of pressure on the middle class. Government programs frequently fail to fulfill even minimal intentions while squandering scarce resources. The United States has been a fortunate country, with solutions frequently emerging in unexpected ways.

It would seem to me that unless the United States gets lucky again, its global dominance is in jeopardy. Considering its history, the United States can expect to get lucky again, but it usually gets lucky when it is frightened. And at this point it isn’t frightened but angry, believing that if only its own solutions were employed, this problem and all others would go away. I am arguing that the conventional solutions offered by all sides do not yet grasp the magnitude of the problem — that the foundation of American society is at risk — and therefore all sides are content to repeat what has been said before.

People who are smarter and luckier than I am will have to craft the solution. I am simply pointing out the potential consequences of the problem and the inadequacy of all the ideas I have seen so far.

Judge Jean Boyd is a Republican judge who has presided over the Texas 323rd Family District Court since 1995. She is now at the center of world-wide attention because she sentenced 16-year-old named Ethan Couch to probation and entry into a private, exclusive $450,000 Southern California coastal rehab program after Couch – while over 3 times the legal limit of alcohol intoxication from drinking stolen beer and under the influence of Valium – drove an automobile and caused the deaths of four people and injured 10 others. Couch’s defense was that he was suffering from “affluenza” – a disease that is suffered by rich people who behave irresponsibly because they believe that their position of wealth and privilege will exempt them from the consequences of their bad acts. In this frankly fictitious interview, Judge Boyd explains her reasoning.

PEOPLE OF EARTH: Judge Boyd, thank you for agreeing to speak with us today.

JUDGE JEAN BOYD: My pleasure. I look forward to every opportunity to get the word out about the evils of Obamacare and how wrong it is, morally and economically, to give anything to poor people because all it will do is encourage them to be poor.

POE: We aren’t going to talk about Obamacare today, Judge.

BOYD: For heavens sake, why not? Other than the liberal conspiracy to prevent crazy people from exercising their 2nd Amendment rights to buy automatic weapons, Obamacare is the most important issue our nation faces. When desperate poor people no longer worry about being able to afford to get sick, then they are less likely to tolerate slave wages and poor working conditions. That will mean higher wages, higher prices and the end of our Christian nation as we know it.

POE: Although that is undoubtedly true, we are here today to talk about your decision to sentence Ethan Couch to probation after killing four people because he was suffering from “affluenza.”

BOYD: Yes. I did that based on the testimony of an expert.

POE: You mean Dr. Gary Miller, a psychologist the Couch family hired, who testified that Couch was the victim of his parents wealth and overindulgence, and that his family felt that money would solve any problem?

Dr. Gary Miller

BOYD: That’s the one. Did I mention that he is an expert? That poor boy needs rehabilitation, not incarceration.

POE: And when you say “rehabilitation” you are referring to the private Newport Beach rehabilitation facility in Souther California which costs $450,000 a year that Couch’s extremely wealthy father said he would pay for?

BOYD: Absolutely. That was parts of my judgment. It is important to send someone suffering from an illness to a place where they are comfortable around people who are familiar.

POE: And, in this case, Couch needs a luxurious environment by the beach surrounded by rich people?

BOYD: I’m glad you understand. Are you wealthy?

POE: No.

BOYD: Do you have any other questions?

POE: Yes. Is it your opinion that being wealthy is a defense against manslaughter?

BOYD: Not wealth itself. But the affects of being wealthy can lead to an illness known as “affluenza” and it is that mental disability that makes the wealthy individual not responsible for his or her actions. How can wealthy, white people be held responsible for anything when they suffer from affluenza?

POE: So Affluenza is a disease caused by extreme wealth that is a mitigating factor – an excuse – justifying probation instead of jail or prison.

BOYD: Exactly.

BOYD: Poverty is not a disease. It is a punishment from God for being lazy and shiftless. Wealthy people, such as myself, are provided with wealth and privilege by God as a reward for hard work. If poor people were willing to work hard, they would be wealthy, too.

POE: So affluenza is the result of a gift from God.

BOYD: Yes! Good point! I suspect that, maybe, affluenza is part of God’s plan, which is another reason to go soft on wealthy people who commit crimes.

BOYD: An expensive rehabilitation facility and spa.

BOYD: Yes. Exactly.

POE: Why isn’t there a counterpart for anger encouraged by poverty and disadvantage?

BOYD: That makes no sense.

POE: Let me give you an example. About a year ago you sentenced a 14 year old African-American boy to 10 years in prison for accidentally killing a man.

BOYD: I sure did. That little monster punched that man, who fell and hit his head on the pavement and eventually died. That black boy killed a person.

POE: Ethan Couch had a history of drug and alcohol use and drunk driving. He stole two cases of beer, got drunk, went driving and killed four people, injuring ten others – some catastrophically. Sixteen year old Sergio Molina survived the accident but is now paralyzed for the rest of his life.

BOYD: Yes, but Ethan Couch suffers from a disease.

POE: Why wasn’t that 14 year old black boy suffering from DCS?

BOYD: DCS?

POE: Disadvantaged Citizen Syndrome.

BOYD: You really aren’t listening. Ethan Couch’s wealth and privilege caused him to have the emotional and intellectual capacity of a twelve year old boy. It would be wrong to punish him with something so extreme as time in prison.

POE: The State of Texas has no problem executing retarded black men with a mental age of 12 or even younger.

BOYD: I am offended by the term “retarded.”

POE: Really? That offends you? Letting a rich kid get away with killing four people because he is rich and emotionally immature while executing mentally challenged black men who’s only difference from the rich white kid is that they are poor and black – that doesn’t offend you?

BOYD: That hasn’t happened. You liberals are always making things up. Name one time that has happened.

POE: Mavin Wilson. A 54 year old black guy with with IQ of 61. Executed in Texas on August 7, 2012.

BOYD: He wasn’t retarded.

POE: Texas law states that an IQ of 70 or less qualifies as retarded.

BOYD: You’re missing the point here. Ethan Couch’s family raised him to believe that his wealth and race bought privilege.

POE: Looks like they were right.

BOYD: That poor child was raised in an environment with no link between his behavior and consequences.

POE: So sending him to an expensive, luxury rehab center on the beach in Southern California thousands of miles away from his parents will teach him how not to feel privileged because he is white and wealthy? Your defense for his bad acts is that he was ignored and had money thrown at him, but you’re sending him away and spending a lot of money on him. How is this going to rehabilitate him? How will that cure him of the parental neglect and over privilege that you say caused him to get drunk and kill four people? Is ten years of probation “better” than any amount of prison time? Do you think it will be effective in altering his behavior? Isn’t your judgment in his favor just more proof that the American justice system is designed by politicians paid by the rich to protect the rich at the expense of everyone else?

JUDGE BOYD: This interview is over.

POE: Oh no it isn’t. It has just begun. What you did wasn’t justice. It was an anthem to the power of privilege. You have proven that American justice isn’t fair and isn’t equal. You’ve shown that justice in America is for sale at a price that only the wealthy can afford. You will never get a good night’s sleep again. What you did has outraged republicans and democrats, liberals and conservatives alike. We are united in our condemnation of your abominable decision to let this kid go with a slap on the wrist and a sentence sending him to a luxury resort paid for by his rich father. We will not let you forget or pretend you behaved in any way as a judge is expected to behave.

The American people know the game is rigged in favor of rich people. We know the rich post bail and the poor go to jail. And we tolerate a certain measure of that kind of corruption. But what you did went too far. You opened up the sore and showed the rot infesting the body politic. Your career as a judge is over. You just don’t know it yet.

.

.

.

UPDATE: Judge Boyd is now expected to retire, but a petition is circulating demanding that Texas Governor Perry remove Judge Boyd from the bench immediately.

So I am sitting on the couch in my family room watching my son watching Buffy the Vampire Slayer, when I comment on the recent news articles revealing that former POTUS George Herbert Walker Bush is an accomplished painter with a penchant for painting himself in the nude.

.

.

“You mean he stood there looking at himself in a mirror?” My son asked.

“Yes, I suppose he did,” I responded.

After a short silence my son opined:

“Well, that makes sense.”

“What do you mean?” I asked.

“Okay, let’s say you are a former conservative Republican President who likes to paint nudes,” my son says.

“Okay,” I respond. “let’s say that.”

“Well, then your possibilities are limited,” my son concludes.

“How so?” I ask.

“Have you seen Barbara Bush?” my son asks.

“His wife?”

“Yes.”

.

.

.

“Oh,” I said, granting the point.

.

UPDATE:

I found out later that it is was recently revealed that it is George Bush the Younger (the one who started two long wars but didn’t pay for them and very nearly brought down the global economy), not George Bush the Elder (the one who scoffed at his critics’ complaints that he lacked foresight by referring to it as “that vision thing”) who painted and presumably still paints himself nude.

I didn’t inform my son of my error. I value any exercise in critical thinking and, based on even invalid data his conclusion was admirable.

And it is very likely that the younger Bush paints himself nude because his daddy did it, too, and the younger Bush is competing with him artistically.

The following photo is of a painting obtained by hackers of the younger Bush’s painting efforts. It is a bit creepy because it is clearly derived from a photograph, which means George has a collaborator who takes pictures of him in the nude:

.

.

The elder Bush was a better president (he fought Gulf War I, neutralized Saddam Hussein without creating a quagmire the US could not exit from). The odds are the elder Bush is a better painter.

.

“It is a complete mystery to me how on earth these two people could be accidentally shot a gun show,” said Skip Henderson, gun enthusiast, misogynist, homophobe, racist and sociopath.

.

Skip Anderson can buy this gun at a gun show without a background check.

.

At gun shows Americans – or anyone – can purchase automatic weapons without any background check being conducted.

.

“Hello, my name is Joe, and that is my real name. It is not a made up name. I am Joe. And I am interested in purchasing your AK-47 in a cash transaction. Oooo! Are those high-capacity ammunition magazine clips I see in that bag?”

.

“I bet Obama snuck in here and shot those 2 people to make gun owners look bad so that he and his Negro Army can come and take away our guns” Henderson said.

.

.

“Guns are not responsible for these injuries and it is completely irresponsible to imply that guns have any connection to gun violence whatsoever anywhere in the world especially at a gun show,” said Tripp Wightman, a gun rights activist,”doomsday prepper” and paranoid schizophrenic who buys guns at gun shows without any background checks and makes methane from his own excrement.

.

Mentally unfit to purchase a gun, but passed a background check because no court had ever declared him mentally unfit. So, like hundreds of thousands of people who should not ever own a gun, he was allowed to purchase one. And then he went to a political rally.

>

“I will shoot anyone in the head multiple times using a semi automatic weapon with a fucking huge ammo clip,” Wightman said. “I’m sorry, I lost my train of thought. Oh yeah, the point I am trying to make is to make it very clear that I will shoot and kill anyone who argues that gun violence – the epidemic of gun violence that is sweeping across our nation and tearing apart the fabric of our society. Hell, it happened again. I totally lost my train of thought.”

.

He purchased two hand guns, a shot gun, and a semi automatic rifle and passed all three background checks. No court had ever declared him mentally unfit. Consequently he was not in the federal database that is used to perform background checks of people buying guns.After purchasing these guns, he went to the cinema.

.

“Where was I? Oh yeah, I will brutally murder anyone who so much as implies that guns have anything to do with gun violence or attempts in any way to improve mental health care or background checks to prevent someone like me from buying all the guns I want. And then I will mutilate their bodies. And if possible, I will sell the body parts – including fluids – to raise money so I can buy more guns. That is how much I love America. That is how much I love the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution that protects my rights to own and use weapons that are designed to kill people. Lots and lots of people. Lots and lots of smelly, anti-American sinners who are building socialist agnostic, atheist, and Catholic robots that steal my luggage, violate my rights and infringe on my personal freedoms,” said Wightman.

.

He bought this gun at a gun show without a background check. And now he is watching your children walk to school.

.

“No one loves America more than me. Or guns,” said Wightman. “Did I tell you that I make methane from my own poop? I do it to stop the government from reading my thoughts.”

“The only option I will consider to remedy what is arguably an epidemic of gun related deaths in the United States is what the NRA proposed, and that is posting armed guards in every school in the country. But I do not want any taxpayer money to pay for it. I want these armed guards to be volunteers.”

.

Eager to volunteer.

.

“In other words, people like me,” Wightman concluded before adjusting the aluminum foil cap covering his head.

.

.

Gun owners are willing to kill in order to maintain unrestrained access to assault weapons and the lack of background checks for those buying automatic weapons.

.

UPDATE: subsequent to the posting of this story, 5 additional people were accidentally shot at gun shows in the United States.